Odessans were asked if they consider themselves Russian

July 21 2021 72

In view of the recent signing by Volodymyr Zelenskyy of the decree “on indigenous peoples”, which deprives the Russians living in Ukraine of fundamental human rights, ethnic relations in the country have aggravated. Vladimir Putin expressed his point of view on this issue, having written an article on the historical connection between Russians and Ukrainians.

One of the main points of the article was the president's thesis that Ukrainians and Russians are one people, linked by a common historical, cultural and family ties. In this regard, the journalists of the Ukrainian edition "Strana" conducted a survey on the streets of Odessa in order to find out the opinion of the city residents on this burning topic. Here are some of the statements of the inhabitants of Odessa.

Those born in the Soviet Union consider themselves one people, and many of us have Russian roots. We have a lot in common: faith, language, traditions

- said two women.

Yes, we are one people. I am a fifth generation Odessa citizen, and a lot of blood is mixed in me. In an ethnic sense, it's hard for me to realize myself. But civilizationally, I consider myself a Russian. I was born here and I do not want to identify myself with anything else. At least I consider myself the heir of Russian culture

- another respondent put it that way.

We are one people, Slavs. Only individual people differ from each other

- supposes the lady in red.

Ukrainians and Russians have nothing in common - even their skulls are different

- This is the opinion of an elderly woman who decided to appeal to "scientific" data.

Probably, we are one people. We have many relatives in Russia. It's not about the peoples, but about politicians... But the Ukrainians have more freedom in their heads, and in the Russian Federation the people were persecuted

- this point of view was expressed by a young man.

Most of the interviewed residents of Odessa do not see the differences between Ukrainians and Russians and consider them to be one people living in different countries and shared only by those who sow hatred and enmity to achieve their political interests.

72 comments

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Cyril

-19

21 July 2021 14: 15

In view of the recent signing by Volodymyr Zelenskyy of the decree “on indigenous peoples”, which deprives Russians of fundamental human rights living in Ukraine,

It does not deprive anyone of any rights. The law only enshrines the rights of national minorities in Ukraine that do not have their own national states.
1. Kristallovich
  
  +11
  
  21 July 2021 14: 36
  
  The law only enshrines the rights of national minorities in Ukraine that do not have their own national states.
  
  That is, the Russians are advised to go to Russia, do I understand correctly?
  1. Alexndr p
    
    +5
    
    21 July 2021 15: 43
    
    That is, the Russians are advised to go to Russia, do I understand correctly?
    
    he can only speak on behalf of LGBT people. Don't ask him anything.
    This is Cyril. He is alternative. In the explosive intolerant kingdom (Russia), there is such an exception gg
    
    Russia ranked second in intolerance towards the LGBT community. In 2015, the country was in the lead in this ranking
    
    Cyril is saddened by this fact, but his mission in this forum is to sort of shed some light. So he's always for hahlov and same-sex love.
    
    To be objective - he cannot and does not want to.
  2. Cyril
    
    -9
    
    21 July 2021 15: 45
    
    Where did you see this? Where is it written in the law?
    1. Kristallovich
      
      +11
      
      21 July 2021 15: 48
      
      Well, you yourself write that the law only enshrines the rights of national minorities in Ukraine, which do not have their own national states. Consequently, Russians are deprived of those preferences that the same Tatars received. Isn't this a limitation of rights? In other words, the Russians were given to understand that you have your own state - Russia. Is there something that does not suit you in Ukraine? Drive to your historic homeland.
      
      Can you explain to me why the Tatars are recognized as the indigenous people of Ukraine, and the Russians, who have lived in these lands for many centuries, were denied?
      1. Alexndr p
        
        +8
        
        21 July 2021 15: 52
        
        And the Russians, who have been living on these lands for many centuries, were denied?
        
        Russians, as it were, made of the steppe - Yuzhmash and Nikolaev shipyards. And when they left, the khakhly returned to their origins - to the steppe
      2. Cyril
        
        -7
        
        21 July 2021 15: 54
        
        Well, you yourself write that the law only enshrines the rights of national minorities in Ukraine, which do not have their own national states. Therefore, Russians are deprived of those preferences that the same Tatars received.
        
        Not. The emphasis of the law on the rights of some national minorities does not imply infringement of the rights of other national minorities. Otherwise, according to your own logic, this law infringed upon the rights of Ukrainians themselves, because it says nothing about Ukrainians.
        
        It's simple. Specifically, this law regulates the observance of the rights of national minorities in Ukraine that do not have their own state. The rights of other national minorities that have their own states are regulated by other laws. That's all.
        
        Kristallovich
        
        +8
        
        21 July 2021 16: 01
        
        The emphasis of the law on the rights of some national minorities does not imply infringement of the rights of other national minorities. Otherwise, according to your own logic, this law infringed upon the rights of the Ukrainians themselves.
        
        How long have Ukrainians become a national minority in Ukraine? Do you even know what you are writing?
        
        Specifically, this law regulates the observance of the rights of national minorities in Ukraine that do not have their own state.
        
        Well, you yourself confirm that the Russians are "politely asked" to blame their historical homeland. Russians were not recognized as the indigenous people of Ukraine because there is Russia. Don't you find a particle of moronism in this? This people lived there when Ukraine itself did not even exist in the future.
        
        Alexndr p
        
        +6
        
        21 July 2021 16: 02
        
        Do you even know what you are writing?
        
        Cyril
        
        -6
        
        21 July 2021 16: 25
        
        How long have Ukrainians become a national minority in Ukraine? Do you even know what you are writing?
        
        I perfectly understand what I am writing. Ukrainians are not a national minority, I did not call them a national minority. I first spoke about national minorities, and then added, as an additional argument, an example with the Ukrainians themselves. It is my fault if I did not construct a sentence very clearly. He simply said that, according to your logic, the Ukrainians were also infringed upon their rights, because they are not specifically mentioned in this law.
        
        The law is called the "Law on Indigenous Peoples", not the law on "national minorities".
        
        Well, you yourself confirm that the Russians are "politely asked" to blame their historical homeland.
        
        No, I don’t confirm.
        
        Russians were not recognized as the indigenous people of Ukraine because there is Russia.
        
        So in the law, the Ukrainians themselves are not mentioned :) They were also infringed upon?)
        
        In the Russian Federation there is a Federal Law "On guarantees of the rights of indigenous peoples". Does he also infringe on the rights of numerous indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation? No, it's just that this specific law focuses on a specific category of the population. In the same way, the Ukrainian law focuses on a specific category of the population.
        
        Don't you find a particle of moronism in this? This people lived there when Ukraine itself did not even exist in the future.
        
        The problem is that there is no generally accepted definition of "indigenous people" - even the UN Declaration on the Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not have this definition.
        
        Therefore, the Ukrainian law gave its own definition, according to which only 3 were recognized as indigenous peoples - Krymchaks, Karaites and Crimean Tatars. Note that there are no Ukrainians in this list either. In fact, the law simply narrowed the concept of "indigenous people" to the concept of "small indigenous people" and that's it.
        
        The fact that it does not include Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians. Poles, etc., etc. does not mean that this law automatically deprives them of any rights. It's just that their rights are regulated by other laws.
        
        Kristallovich
        
        +6
        
        21 July 2021 16: 36
        
        So in the law, the Ukrainians themselves are not mentioned :) They were also infringed upon?)
        
        If you had read the draft law, you would not have asked stupid questions, which you consider to be extremely successful and subtle jokes addressed to me.
        
        The indigenous people of Ukraine is an autochthonous ethnic community that has formed on the territory of Ukraine, is a bearer of a distinctive language and culture, has traditional social, cultural or representative bodies, is aware of itself as an indigenous people of Ukraine, is an ethnic minority within the population and has no state education outside of Ukraine.
        
        I highlighted it in bold especially for you. Now do you understand why there are no Ukrainians in the law? But there are no Russians there either, who, on the contrary, are a national minority living on the territory of modern Ukraine for many centuries.
        
        Cyril
        
        -7
        
        21 July 2021 16: 43
        
        If you had read the draft law, you would not have asked stupid questions, which you consider to be extremely successful and subtle jokes addressed to me.
        
        I read the definition you gave back when this law came out :)
        
        Now you understand, why are there no Ukrainians in the law?? But there are no Russians there either, who are just a national minority living on the territory of modern Ukraine for many centuries.
        
        And what's the difference, for what reason, the law does not indicate Ukrainians, and for what reason - Russians?) and Russians (since they have their own national state).
        
        It is even simpler: according to this law, neither Russians nor Ukrainians are "indigenous people", albeit according to different criteria.
        
        And this has nothing to do with your first claim that this law infringes upon someone's rights, has nothing. You said that everyone who is not mentioned in the law is infringed on their rights. I show you that there is no infringement of rights. There is an accentuation of the law on the rights of a specific category of the population.
        
        Kristallovich
        
        +6
        
        21 July 2021 17: 11
        
        It is even simpler: according to this law, neither Russians nor Ukrainians are "indigenous people", albeit according to different criteria.
        
        What nonsense ... Ukrainians are in this law not considered! At all! It's theirs does not concern! Therefore, your "according to this law" is absolutely incorrect.
        
        Cyril
        
        -6
        
        21 July 2021 17: 15
        
        What nonsense ... Ukrainians are not considered in this law! At all! This does not concern them!
        
        Finally it starts to dawn on you. It also does not consider Russians and other nationalities, except for the above :)
        
        Kristallovich
        
        +6
        
        21 July 2021 17: 19
        
        It also does not consider Russians and other nationalities, except for the above.
        
        And the Russians were just considered in it, because they are a national minority and generally fit the designated criteria, namely:
        
        an autochthonous ethnic community, which has formed on the territory of Ukraine, is a bearer of an original language and culture, has traditional social, cultural or representative bodies, recognizes itself as an indigenous people of Ukraine, is an ethnic minority in the population
        
        Only with the exception that there is a state formation Russia. That is why I said that the Kiev authorities are directly hinting that the Russians, who are not satisfied with something in Ukraine, can leave it in the direction of the Russian Federation.
        
        Cyril
        
        -7
        
        21 July 2021 17: 30
        
        And the Russians were just considered in it, because they are a national minority and generally fit the designated criteria, namely:
        
        Specifically, the term "Russians", "Russians" was mentioned in the law in any context?
        
        and generally fit the designated criteria, namely ...
        
        ... Only with the exception that there is a state formation Russia.
        
        So the Ukrainians fit this definition, with the exception of two points - the number and the presence of their own state.
        
        That is why I said that the Kiev authorities are directly hinting that the Russians, who are not satisfied with something in Ukraine, can leave it in the direction of the Russian Federation.
        
        That is why I say that this is purely your speculation
        
        Kristallovich
        
        +7
        
        21 July 2021 18: 45
        
        Kirill, keep collecting cons. This is forever, because you have serious problems with logic, which is noticeable for most of the readers of the site. And I will not write the same thing to you in different words. If it doesn't, then most likely it won't.
        
        Cyril
        
        -8
        
        21 July 2021 19: 30
        
        Kirill, keep collecting cons.
        
        I have no goal to please anyone :) Especially the Reporter contingent.
        
        because you have serious problems with logic, which is noticeable for most of the site's readers.
        
        This is the same majority, which confuses the concepts of "gender identity" and "s.u.su.a.l.y.n.a. orientation", argues "copying the F-35 from the Yak-141" outward appearance and sees the infringement of Russians in the law, which does not say a word about Russians?) Well, this majority has at least a count on its head, it is not for him to judge such a concept as logic.
        
        And I will not write the same thing to you in different words.
        
        So who makes you repeat nonsense over and over again?
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +4
        
        21 July 2021 22: 47
        
        This is the same majority, which confuses the concepts of "gender identity" and "sec.su.w.al.y.n.a.i. orientation"
        
        Eck, change your shoes, right in the air!))
        
        I just explained this to you, in response to your - "sexual orientation".)
        
        Your words, Cyril:
        
        Sexual orientation is just sexual orientation ...
        
        My answer to you:
        
        Sexual orientation is just sexual orientation
        There is no such thing as "sexual orientation".
        There is - gender (there are two of them) and there is - c-orientation - their cart and a small cart.
        
        Now you declare that it is not you, but "someone" who is confused in concepts?)
        
        Bravo!
        
        Dodger!))
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        21 July 2021 23: 23
        
        Eck, change your shoes, right in the air!))
        I just explained this to you, in response to your - "sexual orientation".)
        
        There was no change of shoes.
        
        I used the concept of "sexual orientation" because on the Reporter, comments containing the word "s.sk.su.a.l.n.a.ya." are blocked.
        
        Therefore, I used the combination "sexual orientation" as a synonym for the concept of "s.c.su.a.l.y.n.a. orientation". And, in principle, it is correct, because the Latin word sexus, from which the English sex comes from, translates as "sex" or "sexual".
        
        I wrote about this to you immediately, as soon as you allegedly "caught" me in the "wrong" use of terminology. Don't you read my comments either?
        
        I would be glad to use the terms in their usual sound, but the Reporter, in the worst traditions of the "Western tolerators", whom he so vehemently denounces, prohibits the use of a neutral scientific term.
        
        So the question is not for me, but for the site administration.
        
        Now you declare that it is not you, but "someone" who is confused in concepts?)
        
        Yes, that's exactly what I say. Specifically, not "someone", but a user with the nickname Bakht, who constantly confused g.o.s.s.s.s.su.a.l.n.o.s.t. (orientation) with tr.a.n.s.s.s.s.s.su.a.l.n.o.s.t.yu (belonging, identity).
        
        Bakht
        
        +3
        
        22 July 2021 06: 48
        
        Don't make a smart face. It certainly does not suit you. You attribute to your opponent what he did not say. I had a specific message that a person who mixes his biological identity has mental disorders.
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        22 July 2021 07: 14
        
        You attribute to your opponent what he did not say.
        
        Yes?) Well let's see what you said. Quote times:
        
        Strictly speaking, no matter what nontraditional people say about themselves, biologically they remain men and women. And here sexual orientation, that is, who they feel they are - this is precisely a deviation from the norm. That is, to them specifically to a psychiatrist. After Napoleon. So the comparison is quite legitimate.
        
        sexual orientation is not who they feel they are, but who they are attracted to. Don't you feel the difference?)
        
        Quote two:
        
        The difference between a man and a woman lies in the chromosomes. And this is not questioned by anyone. And then that someone considers himself to be not who nature created him, makes him mentally abnormal.
        
        - this was your answer to my comment, in which I spoke about g.o.s.s.s.s.s.a.l.h, not TRAn. s.s.s.s.s.s.a.l.h
        
        Quote three:
        
        In 2009, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) challenged the decision of the World Health Organization, which did not recognize homosexualism disease. According to APA experts, if a person begins to consider himself a representative of the opposite sex, about him we can say that he suffers from "gender dysphoria"
        
        Don't make a smart face.
        
        I don’t make it like that - it’s smart in itself. Just because I'm smart myself.
        
        Bakht
        
        +4
        
        22 July 2021 08: 48
        
        This is not the right topic. But I can say that if a person is attracted to his gender, this is sexual orientation. I read Wikipedia. But unlike you, I read other sources. After all, there are people who end up experiencing sexual satisfaction from masturbation. A man feels like a woman and wants to co-buy with a man. Call it what you want, but this person is mentally abnormal.
        You can even consider yourself a genius. Narcissism, too, has not been canceled. But far from it
        
        Cyril
        
        -6
        
        22 July 2021 09: 04
        
        This is not the right topic.
        
        Do not shirk.
        
        But I can say that if a person is attracted to his gender, this is sexual orientation.
        
        Now, of course you can. But you used to say differently before. How exactly - I have given in your quotes.
        
        I read Wikipedia.
        
        This means that they did not read well, since they confused (and continue to confuse) the concepts.
        
        After all, there are people who end up experiencing sexual satisfaction from masturbation.
        
        This is not an orientation. Any person experiences satisfaction from her.
        
        A man feels like a woman and wants to co-buy with a man.
        
        And if he feels like a man, but wants to copulate with a man?
        
        You are lumping together again two different concepts - "gender identity" and "sscsswallna my orientation." It will never reach you.
        
        Bakht
        
        +4
        
        22 July 2021 09: 12
        
        The main message of my message will never reach you. The basis of the message is not in terms, but in essence. I absolutely do not care what is called. Homocexualism is NOT THE NORM. This is a mental disorder. Your example with the animal world only confirms this point of view. You just need to carefully read what they write about this.
        Once again, personally for you. This is just aggressive propaganda for an abnormal lifestyle. And what is it called - for me personally it does not matter.
        About evasion. I told you everything. And further I consider it simply hopeless. And that's really the wrong topic
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        23 July 2021 12: 01
        
        The basis of the message is not in terms, but in essence.
        
        You cannot speak normally about the essence of phenomena without understanding what they are.
        
        I absolutely do not care what is called.
        
        This is natural, because you, in fact, do not care how things are in reality. You just need to confirm your moral and ethical preferences.
        
        Homocexualism is NOT THE NORM. This is a mental disorder. Your example with the animal world only confirms this point of view.
        
        No, they don't.
        
        You just need to carefully read what they write about this.
        
        Just about, so read, who doesn't give you something?
        
        This is just aggressive propaganda of an abnormal lifestyle.
        
        What the aggression consists of, they did not say.
        
        And what is it called - for me personally it does not matter.
        
        Moreover, it doesn't even matter to you what it really is. What is important for you - I have already noted above.
      3. avm
        
        +2
        
        21 July 2021 16: 23
        
        They did not live, but they mastered these lands ...
2. Cherry
  
  +3
  
  21 July 2021 18: 24
  
  And Zelensky unequivocally answered that, yes, they will probably be infringed on their rights and then they will have to leave.
  1. Cyril
    
    -5
    
    21 July 2021 19: 32
    
    And Zelensky unequivocally answered that, yes, they would probably infringe on their rights and then they would have to leave.
    
    A source?
    
    You are not listening to your president well.
    
    Zelensky became president of Russia? O_o since when?
3. bonifacius
  
  +2
  
  22 July 2021 02: 04
  
  Still, English scientists are right when, as a result of careful research, they have established that every third Maydan Natsik in Ukraine is the same stupid scumbag as the first two.
  1. Cyril
    
    -3
    
    22 July 2021 02: 41
    
    What are you talking about?
4. Yuri Nemov
  
  +1
  
  22 July 2021 08: 35
  
  Then why in Ukraine the state language is Ukrainian, if the Ukrainians in this law are not the indigenous inhabitants of Ukraine? It was not the native language that became the state language, isn't it strange? Moreover, Ukrainian is not the language of the majority.
  1. Cyril
    
    -5
    
    22 July 2021 09: 20
    
    Then why in Ukraine the state language is Ukrainian, if the Ukrainians in this law are not the indigenous inhabitants of Ukraine?
    
    Because the status of the language is regulated by another legislative act, and not by the one discussed in this topic.
    
    It was not the native language that became the state language, isn't it strange?
    
    Not weird. In Russia, for example, in the Republic of Karelia, the only state language is Russian. The indigenous Karelian, Finnish and Vepsian languages are not state languages. In Udmurtia, the Udmurt language has an unclear status - either the state language, or not.
Alexndr p

+11

21 July 2021 14: 47

But the Ukrainians have more freedom in their heads, and in the Russian Federation the people were persecuted

therefore, you will soon be assigned the language in which they will be required to think (which they are required to hum - they have already been assigned) and by the shape of the skull they will determine who is indigenous and who is not very - you have to follow the law

This is from an excess of freedom. and the KP was banned from - that God forbid they would not vote for those they want - free slaves were strictly pointed to the frame of the stall in the barn

And also the free herd surrenders the tax to the war, which does not exist. And it doesn't even squeak. Raising the tariff by 1000%? There is nothing that the slaves could not endure.

This is true freedom. The funny thing is that they were told that this is freedom - and they believe, because critical thinking is like a clown, more precisely, like the president of ukraine

PS guess who chooses the judges for these slaves?)

On July 14, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted in the second and third readings Law No. 5068, according to which foreigners gained control over the High Council of Justice.

right, the slaves of the judges are appointed by the white people. Who did not stain themselves with the quality of the rotten Ukrainian material - from which all life is molded for them)
The comment was deleted.
1. Alexndr p
  
  +8
  
  21 July 2021 15: 52
  
  tell me about the great Ukrainian nation. How long has it been around?
  
  You, of course, please, freak) But yes, I deny the existence of such a nation as a Ukrainian. I even deny the existence of such a language - I agree with the UN decision. I don't consider this location a nation state at all.
  
  And the Kremlin has already taken the land from this barn. It happens, right?) Or you didn’t notice?) These are the scumbags - you don’t understand us.
  
  PS did you moan when the party for which the Seluk voted was banned in Ukraine?) Or is it something else?)
  1. Cyril
    
    -10
    
    21 July 2021 15: 58
    
    tell me about the great Ukrainian nation. How long has it been around?
    
    And since when has the age of a nation been the criterion of its existence? Even if a nation was formed just yesterday, it does not cease to be a nation because of this.
    
    But yes, I deny the existence of such a nation as a Ukrainian.
    
    You can deny anything you want. Well, if you suffer from Weinenger's complex.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Cyril
        
        -9
        
        21 July 2021 16: 00
        
        That is, you cannot answer on the merits of the question :) That is what was required to be proved.
        
        Alexndr p
        
        +7
        
        21 July 2021 16: 02
        
        in fact, I turned on the "road" for a long time, and you are still here
        
        When are you planning to travel?
        
        Cyril
        
        -8
        
        21 July 2021 16: 30
        
        in fact, I turned on the "road" for a long time, and you are still here
        
        That is, on the merits of the question, you have nothing to answer again :)
        
        When are you planning to travel?
        
        I just recently came from Cuba, I want to sit at home :)
        
        Alexndr p
        
        +8
        
        21 July 2021 16: 43
        
        That is, on the merits of the question, you have nothing to answer again :)
        
        I asked how long ago the Ukrainian nation appeared and why did you decide that it was a nation? Not seeing the answer, I once again turned on the road. Are you surprised?)
        
        You already know everything by heart, freak) and you are surprised
        
        I just recently came from Cuba, I want to sit at home :)
        
        sit at home of course.
        
        Cyril
        
        -9
        
        21 July 2021 16: 50
        
        I asked how long ago the Ukrainian nation appeared
        
        And I told you that your question is meaningless, because "age" is not a defining criterion for the concept of "nation".
        
        and why did you decide that this is a nation?
        
        And you just asked this question now. And now he is better, so I answer.
        
        Definition of the concept of "nation": "Historically sustainable community of people that emerged on the basis common language, territory, economic life and mental warehouse, manifested in community of culture"
        
        We look at the Ukrainians. Do you have a common language? There is. Do you have a common area? There is. Is there a common economic life with its own specifics? There is. Is there a commonality of culture? there is.
        
        By all criteria, Ukrainians are a nation.
        
        )
        
        Therefore, it is quite natural that you did not receive an answer to your meaningless question. Know how to ask questions - you will get answers to them.
        
        Are you surprised?)
        
        Your stupidity? Not.
        
        Alexndr p
        
        +7
        
        21 July 2021 16: 59
        
        eccentric, the territory was blinded from what it was - Transcarpathia and Galicia and SE - this is not about one commonality and language and rituals. Faith is even different.
        
        Historically established stable community of people
        
        and Crimea was even in this "historically formed community of people"
        
        Have you tried to tell the Crimeans that they are the Ukrainian nation? So in Transcarpathia, when you tell them that they are the Ukrainian nation, they will scare you,
        
        Although I think there will be a clown there - who will believe that he is now a representative of the Ukrainian nation - well, this is your specialty) such patients)
        
        But such people will also believe if they are told on TV that they are the descendants of Hercules.
        Near Zhitomir recently they found an embroidered shirt of Buddha. This is the very brace of the Ukrainian nation that I was looking for. So you were told - that Ukrainians are a nation - you believed.
        
        Soft material)
        
        Cyril
        
        -6
        
        21 July 2021 17: 09
        
        territories were blinded from what it was - Transcarpathia and Galicia and SE - this is not about one community and language
        
        That is, according to your logic, and Russia is not about one community and language?) Because you hardly understand the language of the Buryats, I will tell you a secret.
        
        What is Ukrainian culture? What is this about?
        
        This is about national cinema, literature, architecture, everyday life, socio-economic structure, fine arts, science. Do you know the definition of the word "culture"? By the way. you do not know.
        
        Alexndr p
        
        +5
        
        21 July 2021 17: 15
        
        That is, according to your logic, and Russia is not about one community and language?)
        
        Buryat is a nationality. Evenk is a nationality. And an Okrainets is the definition of a place of residence - somewhere there - on the outskirts. This is not about culture and community - this is about habitat. Russians are also not about the nation. Russian can be a Slav and a Tatar and an Evenk is also Russian. A Dagestani in Russia is a Dagestani, and beyond the cordon he is Russian.
        
        A Negro who has moved to Ukraine and received a passport - well, if he is a mankurt and has forgotten his roots - he will say that he is Ukrainian and will not even deceive.
        
        And you treat me about the nation here) traditions and roots, yeah. They just forgot their roots invented such a miracle nation. Previously, they were called differently.
        
        More precisely, not they themselves - but of them, the Russians, they blinded what we have on the exhaust)
        
        Half of the khakhlov with Turkic roots are generally observed. I don’t know it happened in 30 years, or even since the Ottoman rule over this territory.
        
        Cyril
        
        -7
        
        21 July 2021 17: 27
        
        Buryat is a nationality. Evenk is a nationality.
        
        Bingo, you’re beginning to understand something :) But you still don’t understand their language :) So, there is no such thing as a "Russian nation"?
        
        And an Okrainets is the definition of a place of residence - somewhere there - on the outskirts
        
        And what is "Russian"?)
        
        Alexndr p
        
        +5
        
        21 July 2021 17: 29
        
        not a nation. and Ukrainians are not a nation
        
        Cyril
        
        -6
        
        21 July 2021 17: 45
        
        Russians are also not about the nation. RURussian can be a Slav and a Tatar, and an Evenk is also Russian. A Dagestani in Russia is a Dagestani, and beyond the cordon he is Russian.
        
        No, the Evenk cannot be Russian. He may be Russian, but not Russian.
        
        Because "Russian" is a nationality, and "Russian" is a nation.
        
        Just "Russian" - this is the designation of the nation. And everything is correct - a Dagestani or a Buryat is also a Russian, a representative of the Russian nation. But at the same time, he remains a Dagestan or Buryat and is not Russian.
        
        The concepts of "nation" and "nationality" are different concepts. At your age, it is time to understand this already.
        
        So why can't a resident of the same Transcarpathia be Ukrainian, but remain Galician at the same time?
        
        So in Transcarpathia, when you tell that they are the Ukrainian nation, they will scare you
        
        And you somehow check whether Chechens or Dagestanis call themselves Russians :)
        
        A Negro who has moved to Ukraine and received a passport - well, if he is a mankurt and has forgotten his roots - he will say that he is Ukrainian and will not even deceive.
        
        That is, the presence of Arap Petrovich Hannibal is evidence of the absence of a "Russian nation"? O_o
        
        More precisely, not they themselves - but of them, the Russians, they blinded what we have on the exhaust) Half of the hakhlov with Turkic roots in general according to observation)
        
        According to your "observation"?) And the Russian Buryats or Bashkirs - are they straight of Slavic appearance?)
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +4
        
        21 July 2021 18: 19
        
        Because you will hardly understand the language of the Buryats, I will tell you a secret.
        
        Well, why this farce, Kyril?
        All, without exception, Buryats are fluent in Russian. At the same time, in Russia, no one forbids them to preserve their historical identity, traditions and language.
        I do not think that every American will understand the language of a hereditary Indian, which, in turn, also does not prevent the Indian from calling himself an American without hindrance.
        
        Cyril
        
        -6
        
        21 July 2021 20: 02
        
        All, without exception, Buryats are fluent in Russian.
        
        AND? Why are you doing this? Am I arguing with that?
        
        I do not think that every American will understand the language of a hereditary Indian, which, in turn, also does not prevent the Indian from calling himself an American without hindrance.
        
        Why are you telling me about this - I don’t deny it. On the contrary, I'm talking about it.
        
        Tell that to Alexander P.
        
        Well, why this farce, Kyril?
        
        I don’t know why you are breeding a farce.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +6
        
        21 July 2021 20: 20
        
        Tell that to Alexander P.
        
        Alexander P is just stupidly right in essence, and this is the main thing!
        Your problem is that, you, Kyril, attach a lot of importance to details, form, without delving into the content, and most importantly, the essence, of this very content.
        And this is not correct. Maybe you don’t need it .. well, so to speak, it’s not your goal, but .. Not constructive.
        You are not a stupid person, that's for sure. You probably noticed that your opinion on many technical issues related to, for example, space, aircraft construction, etc., although without much enthusiasm, but nevertheless with a noticeable share of respect - is taken into account, if not to say - accepted. If this flatters you, you can consider yourself there as a Guru.
        Yes, and you have your own opinion (otherwise you would not be answered here). But .. my advice to you (I do not impose, of course ..) - better stay in "your" topic.
        You will at least be read before "minus". Otherwise .. why then all this?
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        21 July 2021 20: 41
        
        Alexander P is just stupidly right in essence, and this is the main thing!
        
        On what "essence of the question" is he right? What is it? That there is no such nation as Ukrainian? But this is not so - Ukrainians correspond to all the characteristics of a nation, namely, the presence of a common language, state, culture, etc.
        
        Your problem is that you, Kyril, attach a lot of importance to details.
        
        Do you know the expression "the devil is in the details"? Forgive me, but if Ukrainians correspond to the "details" that make up the concept of "nation", then they are a nation.
        
        So, while attaching great importance to details, I also attach great importance to the essence of the concept, which consists of these details.
        
        My opponent, on the other hand, makes only unfounded statements.
        
        You are a stupid person, that's for sure.
        
        Oh well thanks :)
        
        You probably noticed that your opinion on many technical issues related to, for example, space, aircraft construction, etc., although without much enthusiasm, but nevertheless with a noticeable share of respect - is taken into account, if not to say - accepted.
        
        No, I didn’t notice.
        
        Yes, and you have your own opinion
        
        It `s naturally.
        
        stay better in "your" topic.
        
        Perhaps I will not take your advice, forgive me.
        
        You will at least be read before "minus".
        
        And, that is, they minus without even reading?) This explains a lot :)
        
        Otherwise .. why then all this?
        
        What exactly? Why am I getting into these arguments? Just for fun.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +4
        
        21 July 2021 20: 56
        
        On what "essence of the question" is he right? What is it? That there is no such nation as Ukrainian? But this is not so - Ukrainians correspond to all the signs of a nation.
        
        Nation?:)
        
        And who is Kolomoisky? Is he Ukrainian, or is he still a Jew?)
        And Avakov? If he is Ukrainian, then Suvorov, who?
        What is it that anyone who lives in / in Ukraine automatically becomes a Ukrainian by nationality?
        Then why do you think that an Evenk cannot be Russian by nationality?
        
        No, the Evenk cannot be Russian. He may be Russian, but not Russian.
        
        What is this double standard?
        
        Perhaps I will not take your advice, forgive me.
        You will at least be read before "minus".
        
        And, that is, they minus without even reading?) This explains a lot :)
        
        Your business. They will continue to minus you without reading, despite the fact that it explains something to you.
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        21 July 2021 23: 04
        
        Nation?:)
        
        Yes
        
        And who is Kolomoisky? Is he Ukrainian, or is he still a Jew?)
        And Avakov? If he is Ukrainian, then Suvorov, who?
        What is it that anyone who lives in / in Ukraine automatically becomes a Ukrainian by nationality?
        Then why do you think that an Evenk cannot be Russian by nationality?
        
        So, one more time. A bit of theory.
        
        There are 2 concepts. The first is "nationality", the second is "nation".
        
        The difference between them is that "nationality" means a cultural-ethnic group of people, and "nation" is more political. Nationalities appeared much earlier than nations. Nations are a relatively young phenomenon (and a concept) (on a historical scale). They began to take shape at the moment when large centralized states began to form, uniting several ethnic groups into one community. It is the unification of the borders of a common state that distinguishes the "nation" from the "people". A nation cannot exist without its own state, a people can.
        
        For example, until the 16th century there was no such thing as "French", "French nation". At that time, the inhabitants inhabiting the territory of modern France identified themselves as Lombards, Alsatians, Bretons, etc., but did not identify themselves as part of the larger community of "French". Such a concept simply did not exist at that time. The same was the case on the territory that we today call Great Britain (the British nation was finally formed after the union of the British and Scots), Germany (the German nation as such did not exist before Bismarck).
        
        But when the process of centralization of power began, when large and relatively stable political formations (states) began to appear, then nations began to take shape. The French, which united the Bretons with the Lombards, etc., the British, which united the British, Welsh, Welsh, Scots, etc., the Russian, which united the Russians with the Karelians, Caucasians, etc.
        
        It also happens that a nation consists of only one ethnic community. For example, the Japanese nation is 98% ethnic Japanese (although they also have Ryukyus, which are a separate ethnic group, there are simply very few of them). In such cases, a nation and a nationality will denote the same community of people. In the case of, say, the French, "nation" and "nationality" will be different. It all depends on how each particular nation has developed historically.
        
        I hope I clearly stated.
        
        Now directly to your example with Kolomoisky, etc.
        
        Kolomoisky may be ethnically Jewish and at the same time belong to the Ukrainian nation. Just like Shoigu, being an ethnic Buryat (it seems), is a representative of the Russian nation.
        
        What is it that anyone who lives in / in Ukraine automatically becomes a Ukrainian by nationality?
        
        Not. He must not only live in Ukraine, but also identify himself as a Ukrainian, a representative of the Ukrainian nation. This self-identification includes, first of all, language proficiency, knowledge of the culture and history of one's country and one's nation, and, what is important, an awareness of one's belonging to this culture and history.
        
        Then why do you think that an Evenk cannot be Russian by nationality?
        
        The concept of "Russian" is a little more complicated due to the peculiarities of the use of this word in Russian.
        
        "Russians" (Rus, Ross) - initially it is precisely an ethnonym, that is, the designation of a nationality. Then, when the Russian state began to expand and include other tribes, a "Russian nation" began to take shape, including not only the Russians themselves (Rus, Ross), but also other nationalities - especially if these nationalities, due to the natural process of cultural exchange partially or completely adopt the culture of the Russians.
        
        Therefore, from the point of view of ethnography and political science, it is correct to speak of a nation not as “Russians” and “Russian nation”, but as “Russian nation” or “Russians”. But in the common language these concepts did not take root - in ordinary communication we apply the same concept of "Russians" both directly to Russians (nationality) and to all residents of the Russian Federation (nation). Therefore, it turns out that we can have Russians as a Buryat or a Chechen, even if they have little in common with Russian culture.
        
        The same thing happens in our language with other ethnonyms. For example, we often say "English" or "Anglo-Saxons" in relation to the British, although the British nation, in addition to the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) people, includes Celts by origin, Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, Welsh, etc.
        
        Therefore, when I said in one of the comments that the Buryats cannot be Russian (but they are Russian), I used the term "Russian" precisely in its strict scientific vein.
        
        Therefore, no double standards. But I admit that I may have misused the term "Russian" in some commentary. Simply because, in ordinary communication, I am also used to using this concept to all people inhabiting the Russian Federation.
        
        There is one more point in terms of the relationship between ethnic and national identity of a person. For example, a person, say, was born in the same Buryatia, but moved early, for example, to Moscow. Accordingly, he grew up among Russians, he could forget or not use his language, he could not profess Buddhism or local traditional beliefs. In other words, there is no way to identify oneself as Buryats. In this case, yes, we can say that he will be Russian, despite even his anthropological differences from typical Russians (Buryats, let me remind you, Mongoloids).
        
        And that is precisely why the Ukrainian nation exists, despite the fact that it is composed of "Westerners", Rusyns, Galicians and other nationalities with their own ethnic characteristics (dialect, religion, etc.). This is what I was trying to convey to my opponent.
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        21 July 2021 23: 40
        
        Your business. You will be further minus
        
        Oh, for God's sake :) I've already told Ruslan and I'm telling you. that I have no goal to please someone. All the more so for leavened turbopatriots and outspoken Nazis who call for "taking the land from the slaves."
        
        in spite of the fact that it explains something to you.
        
        Not something, but something that is evaluated not by the content of my comments, the degree of their validity, etc., but the degree of coincidence of my opinion with theirs or with the "party line".
        
        The fact that they give me cons without reading of my comments, speaks not about me as a bad commentator and not about the quality of my comments, but about the feeble mind of the "miners" themselves.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +3
        
        22 July 2021 00: 43
        
        The fact that they give me cons without reading my comments ..
        
        ... Oh, for God's sake :) I have already told Ruslan and I am telling you. that I have no goal to please someone ...
        
        Once again: you are minus without reading your comments.
        
        What then is your goal?
        Why are you writing all this at all?
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        22 July 2021 01: 40
        
        Once again: you are minus without reading your comments.
        
        Not all. You are reading.
        
        What then is your goal?
        Why are you writing all this at all?
        
        Well I said - I am having fun :) One of the ways.
aquarius580

-9

21 July 2021 16: 19

The East Slavic population is indeed indistinguishable by ethnicity. The difference is in the perception of the world. The graves of the soldiers and officers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who have died since 2014, do not allow the tale of "one people" to develop. People who speak Russian do not have to be in love with the totalitarian regime of their northeastern neighbors. The people of Ukraine are accustomed to the fact that leaders can be regularly changed. 20 years on the throne, without the prospect of replacement - this is unacceptable for the citizens of Ukraine. Ukraine is accustomed to a multi-party system and democracy.
1. Alexndr p
  
  +6
  
  21 July 2021 16: 21
  
  Ukraine is accustomed to a multi-party system and democracy.
  
  another alternatively gifted garnie maiden. Where is the KP in Ukraine?)
  nazidemocracy banned it or sho?)
  
  this is unacceptable for Ukrainian citizens
  
  for your barn for the norm, the president is a Jewish clown and a nickname mayor of the capital. And for your Natsik clowns, this is also the norm
  
  in ukraine, the only thing that can be normal is that from the bacon on the sandwich - they spread the "national" coat of arms
  1. aquarius580
    
    -9
    
    21 July 2021 16: 25
    
    In Ukraine, of course, communist ideology is prohibited. This is a natural decision based on the results of the Holodomor criminal case.
    1. Alexndr p
      
      +8
      
      21 July 2021 16: 28
      
      In Ukraine, of course, communist ideology is prohibited.
      
      but for dirty girls asking for pennies from the CP of China is the norm, right? you really hahol)
      1. aquarius580
        
        -9
        
        21 July 2021 16: 31
        
        Sasha, don't be rude. After all, you provoke me so that I start yelling at you, and modernization has banned me.
        You must understand: you and I are from different social strata. You have a location on the social ladder - downstairs, do you understand?
        
        Alexndr p
        
        +6
        
        21 July 2021 16: 34
        
        After all, you provoke me so that I start yelling at you, and modernization has banned me.
        
        In general, I am for the fact that you would write me your number in the LAN and I scared over you by video link
        
        You must understand: you and I are from different social strata. You have a location on the social ladder - downstairs, do you understand?
        
        Wow)
Orthodox

+7

21 July 2021 16: 25

The lands of the Novorossiysk Territory of Great Russia were freed from the Turks by A.V. Suvorov with
Russian Victorious Army and Catherine the Great ordered to build Odessa,
and to this day the most beautiful Russian city!
And the "maxims" of the stranger, who came to the journalists' hands, about "turtles" are an insignificant arithmetic error for a city with a million inhabitants!
New Russia is an integral part of Great Russia!
1. aquarius580
  
  -8
  
  21 July 2021 16: 27
  
  In general, Odessa is a Jewish, Moldavian, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, etc. city.
2. aquarius580
  
  -9
  
  21 July 2021 16: 28
  
  Tell me, from what hangover did Suvorov come to the Alps? Is there a primordially Orthodox territory there?
  1. Alexndr p
    
    +8
    
    21 July 2021 16: 32
    
    because he could - he's not Ukrainian.
    1. aquarius580
      
      -10
      
      21 July 2021 16: 36
      
      Because the Russian tsars were six bankers. Suvorov was sent there for the sake of some sort of bank showdown: someone owed someone or something like that.
      1. Alexndr p
        
        +8
        
        21 July 2021 16: 38
        
        Well, Crimea was taken away from girls with hacholki about the same?)
Cherry

+4

21 July 2021 18: 22

But Ukrainians have more freedom in their heads

The wind in your head is not freedom.)
BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

0

21 July 2021 22: 49

only Jews live in Odessa
Bakht

+3

22 July 2021 09: 00

Controversy ...
To begin with, I want to say right away that President Putin is wrong. The Ukrainian and the Russian are not fraternal peoples, but enemies. Ukraine was created by General Hoffman.
Second point. Comparing the two laws on small nations, the difference is immediately apparent. Russian law creates the basis for the development of small peoples. Ukrainian assumes discrimination against them. It is no coincidence that only representatives of the Crimea are included in small peoples.
The third point is more complicated. Russian and Ukrainian have different languages, different cultures, due to the efforts of the Ukrainian authorities, they have no common economic ties. They have a diametrically opposite view of history. Recently, religion has also separated them. Question. Why does a Russian (Hungarian, Romanian, Jew) suddenly become Ukrainian? Russians in Ukraine are NOT Ukrainians. If a Tatar in Russia is not Russian, then a Russian in Ukraine is NOT a Ukrainian either.
Who are they? Following the example of the Baltic States, one can say -natural citizens of Ukraine.
Ukraine, as a state, is an enemy of Russia, and the sooner Russia realizes this, the better. Ukraine can only be a federal non-aligned neutral state, or not at all.
Marzhecki

0

26 July 2021 07: 22

Quote: aquarius580
Because the Russian tsars were six bankers. Suvorov was sent there for the sake of some sort of bank showdown: someone owed someone or something like that.

Oh, this Ukrainian version of history ...